Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#471

Post by hecatoncheires »

aniforprez wrote: post #158
hecatoncheires wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

White supremacists are not fighting for the right of white people to exist or advocating for anything. They would just as easily readily throw a gay or trans white person under the bus. They are terrorist groups that fester through spreading conspiracies about other races and peoples and want nothing less than ethnic cleansing That said, it's commendable that Cloudflare hosts them while making sure to donate to an eq…

You seem to be operating under a definition of "white supremacy" that is at least 5 years out of date.

You see "whiteness" is an illness that uniquely afflicts white people, and causes them to act in their group's self-interest (which is only bad for white people as we all know). Unless you fight against this urge by being actively "anti-racist," i.e. agitating for the benefit of non-white people, then you are a white supremacist (because by simply existing as a passive not-racist white person, you are supporting the white supremacist superstructure).

> terrorist groups that fester through spreading conspiracies about other races and peoples and want nothing less than ethnic cleansing

Given the above definition who exactly is spreading conspiracies about races and agitating for ethnic cleansing? Who is inculcating white children with self-hatred?

Spend 10 minutes on TikTok listening to POCs talk about "palm-handed" people, "mayo demons," colonizers etc. with billions of views and the support of academic, media and corporate orthodoxy, and compare that to some basement dwellers at Stormfront most people have never heard of. Should TikTok be banned?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#472

Post by DoctorOW »

tambourine_man wrote: post #464
DoctorOW wrote: post #22

> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…

Cloudflare is not a public service, the comparison with firefighters is not apt. I’ve been seeing this confusion more and more recently, probably because of the size and omnipresence of corporations. I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance, but the distinction has to be emphasized. Corporations and public services are completely different beasts, with different legisla…

Maybe a better one would be privatized health care? What is the standard for who does or doesn't deserve medical care?

> I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance

Also, my guess is ignorance. Cloudflare is essentially restoring a platform on the internet that is difficult to get and keep for small creators. Their posts on this topic strike me as the super libertarian types who take no issue with privatizing public services.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#473

Post by noboostforyou »

tambourine_man wrote: post #464
DoctorOW wrote: post #22

> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…

Cloudflare is not a public service, the comparison with firefighters is not apt. I’ve been seeing this confusion more and more recently, probably because of the size and omnipresence of corporations. I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance, but the distinction has to be emphasized. Corporations and public services are completely different beasts, with different legisla…

> I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts

I see more than one political group purposefully conflate this in order to push their own agendas.

For example, when a private company says that won't tolerate hate they claim "free speech" infringement but when government silences a critic they don't like it's "law and order."

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#474

Post by peppermint_tea »

wow, so many comments that leads nowhere (law/technical/etc)... what about a counterprotest? Like bigots voicing their opinions on a street corner would attract.

I assume everyone here have a VPN...

would be fun to post some trans positive messages on their rotten kiwi farm.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#475

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Borgz wrote: post #62

I don't understand why Cloudflare believes it is their responsibility to protect content that they admit to finding morally reprehensible when they are under no moral or legal obligation to do so. It seems that Cloudflare believes that they are the only ones who can protect the websites hosting this content from being DDoS'd out of existence, and thus they are protecting their right to freedom of speech. But the owne…

I feel like you missed the core points of this post.

- Precedent from decisions on The Daily Stormer and 8chan was used to pressure Cloudflare to deplatform human rights organizations by authoritarian governments. Refusing to deplatform isn't about protecting Kiwifarms, but protecting other groups in a global environment where they face legal and social pressure on differing and conflicting views. A hands-off policy on moderating the content of their customers removes the possibility of using deplatforming to suppress human rights.

- They rarely get paid by any of these sites, and when they do, tend to donate the proceeds to charities opposed to such awful websites.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#476

Post by Ticklee »

blibble wrote: post #416
weberer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And let's be real. DDoS attacks are acts of digital terrorism. They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. These people who want to revoke DDoS protection for groups they don't like are essentially promoting terrorism. Why else would they fight so hard to remove DDoS protection, if not because they simply want those attacks to succeed?

> And let's be real. DDoS attacks are acts of digital terrorism. They're attacking infrastructure due to political motives. in my experience most of the time it's due to: - boredom ("gotta nuke something") - revenge for being banned/fragged/... - extortion ("ban this person I don't like, or else")

Another big reason is to inhibit the competition, this is often seen in video game servers DDoS attacking each other in order to get people to switch

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#477

Post by SkyBelow »

splitrocket wrote: post #468
tambourine_man wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloudflare is not a public service, the comparison with firefighters is not apt. I’ve been seeing this confusion more and more recently, probably because of the size and omnipresence of corporations. I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance, but the distinction has to be emphasized. Corporations and public services are completely different beasts, with different legisla…

100% concur. Illinois has to allow the Nazis to march: they are the government. You don't have to allow nazis into your private party, nor do you have to publish their books. You, as an individual, and corporations as entities are emphatically not the government.

>Illinois has to allow the

Per the existing law, but given the Constitution can be changed, should they have to allow? Arguing they have to because the law currently prevents them from doing otherwise seems a different argument than it being good for government to have such restrictions because the benefits are worth more than the detriments (or vice versa).

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#478

Post by Cyberdog »

pjc50 wrote: post #151
weberer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say when it breaks a specific law. And if its that serious, get the police and feds involved, not some board members of some hosting company.

In this case, the police are involved, and part of the problem: a KF user got somebody SWATted. The police are amazingly useless at dealing with organized harassment; there have been a couple of cases where people have already been in touch and told them "you will probably receive a hoax call about me", and still got SWATted.

What KF user got someone SWATted? Please name and shame them if you have evidence.

KF makes a very convenient scapegoat and there's no reason for someone opposed to them to false flag as them when calling in a SWAT, or for someone to SWAT themselves or just fake a SWATting entirely and blame it on someone at KF or just KF in general. I'm not saying for sure that has happened in Keffals' case, but it can't be proven that something like that didn't happen yet either.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#479

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

throwrqX wrote: post #340
sealeck wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a remarkably facile comment; on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram you can find people who aren't out to drive trans people to commit suicide, and content which isn't about how to best call SWAT teams to people's homes. On KiwiFarms, that is all there is.

Quoted post unavailable.

The forum whose members spend a lot of time harassing people has a book club thread! They can't be bad people if they spend some of their non-harassing time reading!

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#480

Post by MichaelCollins »

FrecklySunbeam wrote: post #356
squabbles wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keffals brags about sending hrt to minors without their parent's knowledge.

Quoted post unavailable.

Somebody who isn't a doctor, giving medications to a child without their parent's knowledge or permission? That's surely in violation of the law.
Post reply on HN